IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATJ THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 105 OF 2021 Between: B. Sudarsanamma, Wife of late B.Venkata Ratnam, aged about 61 Household, Resident of H.No.25-2-367, Lake View colony, 8th lane, Nellore - II (U) SPSR Nellore. yrs ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance.il), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 500 022. The Commissioner-Director and Inspector General, The Commissioner- Director and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps for the State of A.P. at Hyderabad. 2. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.1170, Revenue (Vigilance.il) Department, dated 19-11-2015 and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits including Gratuity, Commutation etc with interest to the applicant. may lA NO: 1 OF 2024 V' \ eeii; \ -4-’ V State of, Andhra Pradesh rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigila.nce.ll), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 500 022. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. B. Sudarsanamma, Wife of late B.Venkata Ratnam, aged about 61 Household, Resident of H.No.25-2-367, Lake View colony, 8th lane Nellore - II (U) SPSR Nellore. yrs. ... Respondent/Petitioner 2. The Commissioner-Director and Inspector General, The Commissioner- Director and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps for the State of A. P. at Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Respondent Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to receive the affidavit copy on record by allowing the leave petition in the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHANNAIR RAJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER may be APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r- [3333] Thursday, the First day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi W.P(AT) No.105 of 2021 (OANo.1351 of 2016) Between: B.Sudarsanamma W/o late B.Venkata Rathnam Nellore ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and another ....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Rajiv Kumar Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Services The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J WP (AT) No.105 of 2021 ORDER: The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal wde O.A.No.1351 of 2016. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was numbered as W.P.(AT).No.105 of 2021. The petition was filed seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1 respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.1170, Revenue (Vigillance.il) Department, dated 19-11-2015 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits including Gratuity, Commutation etc with interest to the applicant. St The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: 02. The husband of the petitioner received a charge memo dated 01.06.1998, while was working as Sub-Registrar, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District, alleging that while he was working as Joint Sub- Registrar-11, Registrar Office (O.B) Guntur, he admitted and registered certain documents, without verifying the date of purchase of stamps, leading to loss of revenue to the government. In reply to the charge memo, the husband of the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 22.06.1998, denying the charges and also requested to furnish the copies of the documents mentioned in the charge memo stating that he had never committed any irregularity and further stating that he had registered the documents as per the instructions of the respondent No.2 and that as Sub-Registrar, his duty was to register the documents as per the recitals in the document only and he had no authority to verify about the genuinity of the stamps of the documents; that as per the instructions of respondent No.2, bearing Memo No. M.V1/5000/92, a. 3 BSB, J WP(AT) No.105 of 2021 dated 26.07.1993 and 20.08.1993, the revision of the market value was effected from 01.04.1995 and consequently, all the records of stamp vendors and document writers' registers were collected, closed, and handed over to the District Registrar, Guntur; that after the countersigning of the said registers by the District Registrar, they were kept in his personal custody: that after the presentation of documents with old stamps, the District Registrar was required to return the said registers to the concerned Sub-Registrar for verification of the stamps; and that if the stamp vendors' registers were under the custody of the District Registrar, the sale of ante-dated stamps could not have occurred. As per the instructions of Memo No. GSO/13325/95 dated 06.05.1995 and orders from the DIG (R&S), Guntur, documents were to be registered only after verifying the stamps. Upon verification by the Assistant District Registrar, Sri K.Baburao, the documents were admitted for registration. However, the petitioner’s husband was accused of selling ante-dated stamps, without duly considering his repeated explanations, including a detailed explanation submitted on 22.06.1998. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her husband under the charge memo dated 19.06.2000, nearly five years after the alleged incidents. No proper enquiry was conducted for over eight years during which time, multiple enquiry officers were appointed without substantial progress. Eventually, another enquiry officer was appointed through proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 17.04.2010, who again failed to conduct an enquiry. b. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s husband filed Criminal Petition No. 6213 of 2007 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 838 of 2006, registered on c. 4 BSB, J WP (AT) No.105 of 2021 similar allegations mentioned in the charge memo. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings by its judgment dated 10.12.2007. In similar eases such as that of Sri K. Mangaiah (O.A. No. 8093 of 2010), the disciplinary proceedings were set aside due to inordinate delay and retiral benefits were released to him. Similarly, in the cases of Sri P.C. Solemn Raju and Sri Siva Raju, the Tribunal set aside the charge memos and the retiral benefits were released. Despite this, the enquiry officer held that the charge against the petitioner’s husband was proved basing solely on the preliminary enquiry report which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (ARCS (CC&A) Rules). Basing on the enquiry officer’s report, the respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice dated 05.12.2013, proposing to impose a penalty of 100% cut in pension and recover an amount of Rs.7,60,962/-. In response, the petitioner’s husband submitted his detailed explanation on 29.01.2014. However, the respondent No.1, without considering the explanation, passed the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.1170 dated 19.11.2015, imposing punishment of permanent cut of 20% of pension and recovery of Rs.7,60,962/-. There has been an inordinate delay in conducting the enquiry, as the allegation pertains to the year 1995, and the charge memo was issued only on 01.06.1998. Multiple enquiry officers were appointed without conducting a proper enquiry leading to the impugned order being passed nearly 20 years after the incident. This delay caused prejudice to her husband who was allowed to retire without receiving any retiral benefits due to the pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner’s husband passed away on 20.01.2016 without receiving his d. 5 BSBJ WP(AT) No.105 of 2021 pensionary benefits. Despite her submitting all the required documents no action has been taken to release these benefits. The respondent No. 1 filed counter-affidavit stating briefly as 3. follows: The Government of Andhra Pradesh revised the market value of properties effective from 01.04.1995. Under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, documents executed on or before 31.03.1995 could be presented for registration within four months, i.e., up to 120 days. This provision allowed individuals to register documents with old market values and stamp duty rates if submitted within the said period. The cut-off date, 31.03.1995, was crucial as documents registered after 01.04.1995 would be subject to the new higher rates. a. Certain officials in the Registrar’s Office, Guntur, in connivance with stamp vendors and office staff, took undue advantage of this situation by manipulating records. The records were falsified to reflect that non-judicial stamps were sold before 31.03.1995, allowing documents to be registered after 01.04.1995 at old values. This fraudulent practice resulted in a substantial loss to the government. The petitioner’s husband, Sri B.V. Ratnam, while serving as Joint Sub- Registrar II, Guntur, between 01.07.1994 and 05.03.1996, was involved in these activities. He registered documents without verifying the authenticity of stamps, causing a loss of Rs.7,60,962/- to the government. b. Additionally, Sri B.V. Ratnam registered documents with special adhesive stamps sold by unauthorized vendors, further violating Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Rules resulting in a loss of Rs.4,24,926/-. Furthermore, the documents with mixed use of special adhesive and c. r X 6 BSBJ WP (AT) No.105 of 2021 non-judicial stamps, which were antedated, caused another loss of Rs.2,32,262/-. Consequently, the total loss attributed to the petitioner’s husband amounted to Rs. 14,18,150/-. The department conducted a preliminary inquiry, after which disciplinary action was initiated under Rule 20 of the ARCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, against the petitioner’s husband and other employees involved. A charge memo was issued on 01.06.1998 against the petitioner’s husband. The inquiry was led by a series of appointed officers, the final inquiry officer being the Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamps, Guntur. After due inquiry, the officer found all charges against the petitioner’s husband proved, as reported in the inquiry report dated 13.03.2012. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner’s husband on 05.12.2013, proposing a 100% permanent cut in pension and recovery of Rs.7,60,962/-. Upon receiving his representation , the government, considering the case on humanitarian grounds, reduced the penalty to a 20% permanent cut in pension while maintaining the recovery of Rs.7,60,962/-. These orders were passed vide G.O.Rt. No. 1170, dated 19.11.2015. After the demise of the petitioner’s husband on 20.01.2016, the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, implemented the order by adjusting the recovery amount from the gratuity and pension arrears. The petitioner is now receiving a family pension of Rs.26,262/- per month, with 20% deducted permanently. The petitioner’s husband had 117 days of earned leave at the time of his retirement on 30.06.1999, for which encashment of Rs.37,565/- was ordered, and steps were taken for its disbursement. The original records were surrendered to the Crime Investigation Department (CID) for investigation, and the inquiry was conducted based on certified copies obtained from the Court. The entire inquiry d. e. w.m BSBJ WP(AT) No.105 of 2021 'A conducted fairly, following the ARCS (CC&A) Rules, and adequate opportunities were provided to the petitioner’s husband to defend himself. Therefore, the orders issued were just and in accordance with was law. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 does not address the grounds raised by the petitioner in challenging the impugned order. The respondent No.1 could not justify the inordinate delay in concluding the departmental enquiry against the husband of the petitioner. As per the decision in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others\ once an employee retires from service, the proceedings of the enquiry lapse in the absence of any specific provision for continuance of the enquiry after retirement. In the case on hand, the husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.1999 and the regular enquiry officer was appointed on 06.04.2000. A person cannot be deprived of his pension without the authority of law which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of the respondent No.1 imposing punishment of 20% cut in the pension is not only defective but also unlawful, petition is liable to be allowed. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the delay in the enquiry caused injustice. This ground ought to have been taken during the pendency of the enquiry by taking appropriate steps, but after completion of the enquiry, mere delay in conducting enquiry cannot be a ground to set aside the result in the enquiry unless it is shown that such The writ 'AIR 1999 SC 1841 % BSB, J WP (AT) No.105 of 2021 delay prejudicially affected the charged officer in effectively placing his defence. In the present case, no such ground could be established. Moreover, the delay was due to the record held up in criminal case. 7. Since the husband of the petitioner opportunity during the course of enquiry and the explanation given has been answered in the report, it is not correct to state that the explanation offered by the charged officer was not considered. It is also contended that similarly placed charged officers met with serious punishment. But, each case is to be independently dealt with in the light of the evidence and the charges, principles, which can be of guidance and not the result in any other proceeding. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner cannot refer to similar cases with regard to the result. Insofar as punishment is concerned, initially 100% cut in pension and recovery of amount was proposed, but upon considering the request of the charged officer on humanitarian grounds, the punishment was reduced to 20% permanent cut while maintaining the recovery of the amount. Since the amount of loss to the government was rightly ordered to be recovered, the same does not require interference. Imposition of penalty of 20% cut permanently is disproportionate ly high as the amount of loss to the government was ordered to be recovered. As such, the same can be limited to a period of five (5) years from the date of retirement of the charged officer, impugned remains intact. was given adequate 8. were not It is only 9. The rest of the order W""~- 9 BSB,J WP (AT) No.105 of 2021 s Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. ^SECTK^fel //TRUE COPY// FFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance.11), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner-Director and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps for the State of A.P. at Vijayawada. 3. One CC to Sri Mohannair Rajeev Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services !, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies TF (gsg) s> HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.105 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS